Tweet
This site isn't where I was planning on posting this, but on another conservative political blogging site there are a lot of hotheads on there that post personal attacks on people. You know how politics can get. Most people on here are very level-headed and mature and I respect that.
Where I'm coming from: I am conservative with leanings toward libertarianism. I believe in personal responsibility, pursuing the American Dream, and a government that is only as big as it absolutely needs to be (which is way too big right now).
My delimma: I don't know who to vote for. Democrats are all out; it's my opinion that party has socialistic leanings with all the governmental entitlement programs they have been proposing the last few years. Our Republican choices:
Mike Huckabee - a big-government conservative when he was governor of Arkansas. He likely wouldn't reduce the size of the government, but I like his stand on his faith.
John McCain - he's for amnesty. It's my opinion that unchecked illegal immigration is a major drain on the services of our government that are intended for citizens. They are significantly driving up our costs in many aspects of our life from insurance to health care.
Mitt Romney - while I respect his strength in finance and business, I hold highly suspect his change from liberal to conservative. Most people form their political opinions in their 20s and 30s. To do a complete 180 in your 50s makes me question his motivation.
Rudy Giuliani - too liberal on the social issues for me, but love the stand on terrorism.
Fred Thompson - definitely a possibility, looks pretty good overall.
Ron Paul - up until a few weeks ago I said there was no way I'd vote for him because I think his stance on bringing the troops home ASAP would lead to disaster over in the middle east. But lately, maybe with the slowing down of the economy, I've been more concerned about the state of our country financially. Our country is currently $9.1 trillion in debt. We need to do something and soon to bring the debt down. China is taking over our country without firing a single shot. I really like Paul's emphasis on the reduction in the size of the government. It's time the U.S. took care of its own issues instead of helping everybody else in the world in the future. If we don't get our own house of cards in order then we'll never be able to help anybody else. My only hangup is his stance on terrorism and the war on radical Islam. So my question is this: can he change? It's a universal understanding that we have been extremely lucky to have not had another 9/11 since then. All the terrorists need to do is get one hit and the U.S. government needs to stop every attack. Most agree that it's inevitable it will happen again. If Ron Paul were president and we got hit with another terrorist attack, would he then go after the terrorists? My theory has logic behind it: we get any other presidential candidate in office and we continue our big government spending ways and chances are we still get hit with a terror attack, or we put Ron Paul in office and reduce spending/size of government and still get hit with a terror attack. God willing, I would never wish a terror attack on anybody but I can't help but begin leaning toward Ron Paul. I guess my uncertainty is what would it take for him to change his mind about terrorism? How many people would have to die? In the meantime, Ron Paul is healing our financial woes as a country.
Oh, and I quit believing I'm throwing my vote away. If everybody thinks that then we'll never throw the career politicians out.
So what do others think? From a conservative perspective, am I off base here?
Where I'm coming from: I am conservative with leanings toward libertarianism. I believe in personal responsibility, pursuing the American Dream, and a government that is only as big as it absolutely needs to be (which is way too big right now).
My delimma: I don't know who to vote for. Democrats are all out; it's my opinion that party has socialistic leanings with all the governmental entitlement programs they have been proposing the last few years. Our Republican choices:
Mike Huckabee - a big-government conservative when he was governor of Arkansas. He likely wouldn't reduce the size of the government, but I like his stand on his faith.
John McCain - he's for amnesty. It's my opinion that unchecked illegal immigration is a major drain on the services of our government that are intended for citizens. They are significantly driving up our costs in many aspects of our life from insurance to health care.
Mitt Romney - while I respect his strength in finance and business, I hold highly suspect his change from liberal to conservative. Most people form their political opinions in their 20s and 30s. To do a complete 180 in your 50s makes me question his motivation.
Rudy Giuliani - too liberal on the social issues for me, but love the stand on terrorism.
Fred Thompson - definitely a possibility, looks pretty good overall.
Ron Paul - up until a few weeks ago I said there was no way I'd vote for him because I think his stance on bringing the troops home ASAP would lead to disaster over in the middle east. But lately, maybe with the slowing down of the economy, I've been more concerned about the state of our country financially. Our country is currently $9.1 trillion in debt. We need to do something and soon to bring the debt down. China is taking over our country without firing a single shot. I really like Paul's emphasis on the reduction in the size of the government. It's time the U.S. took care of its own issues instead of helping everybody else in the world in the future. If we don't get our own house of cards in order then we'll never be able to help anybody else. My only hangup is his stance on terrorism and the war on radical Islam. So my question is this: can he change? It's a universal understanding that we have been extremely lucky to have not had another 9/11 since then. All the terrorists need to do is get one hit and the U.S. government needs to stop every attack. Most agree that it's inevitable it will happen again. If Ron Paul were president and we got hit with another terrorist attack, would he then go after the terrorists? My theory has logic behind it: we get any other presidential candidate in office and we continue our big government spending ways and chances are we still get hit with a terror attack, or we put Ron Paul in office and reduce spending/size of government and still get hit with a terror attack. God willing, I would never wish a terror attack on anybody but I can't help but begin leaning toward Ron Paul. I guess my uncertainty is what would it take for him to change his mind about terrorism? How many people would have to die? In the meantime, Ron Paul is healing our financial woes as a country.
Oh, and I quit believing I'm throwing my vote away. If everybody thinks that then we'll never throw the career politicians out.
So what do others think? From a conservative perspective, am I off base here?
Comment